Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

Brussels, 25 / 5 (2018)

FINAL MINUTES Meeting of the Civil Dialogue Group on Environment and Climate Change

Date: 25 May 2018

Chair: Mr Jannes MAES (CEJA)

Organisations present: All Organisations were present, except Bee Life-European Beekeeping

Coordination (Bee Life), CAN Europe, CEMA - European Agricultural Machinery (CEMA),

European Biodiesel Board (EBB), EFA, EFFAT, EFNCP, European Organic Certifiers Council

(EOCC), European Liaison Committee for Agriculture and agri-food trade (CELCAA), European

Agroforestry Federation (EURAF), EuroCommerce, EUROCOOP, FEFANA, SACAR

1. Approval of the agenda (and of the minutes of previous meeting1) Agenda and minutes approved.

2. Nature of the meeting

The meeting was non-public.

3. List of points discussed

Presentation of the new Advanced Gateway to your Meetings system (AGM)

DG AGRI presented the new portal (AGM) for the organisation of CDG meetings. AGM will

send the invitation to attend the meeting, allow invitees to confirm their participation, enter bank

account details, and send expenses claims electronically. Email notifications will be sent

throughout the process.

Other advantages include the fact that everything will be processed electronically and will be

accessible 24/7. The reimbursement procedure will be accelerated and will take around 5 days.

There is a deadline of 30 calendar days (with 2 reminders) to upload all relevant reimbursement

documents. A notification will be sent when the payment is complete.

Usernames and passwords can be shared with a third person so they can fill in details of a

participant on that participant’s behalf. Documents for meetings will remain in CIRCABC and a

help desk is available. Further information can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/tools/agm

Terminology:

1 If not adopted by written procedure (CIRCABC)

Ref. Ares(2018)3403984 - 27/06/2018

Correspondent: an external user with a coordinator role, nominated to draw up the list of

participants, it can be a physical person or an email account. Two correspondents must be

nominated.

Participant: physical person that participates in the meeting.

Note-takers are to be registered as non-reimbursable participants and will have access to the e-

Pass and invitation.

WWF asked when it would be advisable to send the participant’s list and to which DG AGRI

replied that 1 week in advance is ideal and that the list should be as complete as possible with

few or no changes to be made.

The Chair pointed out that one of the CDG’s Vice Chairs, Faustine Bas-Defossez is no longer

working at the EEB and a replacement wouldn’t be appointed until the CDG’s next meeting in

November.

Discussion and exchange of views on The Future of Food and Farming

DG AGRI presented the procedure of the proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural

Policy (CAP), some elements of the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) proposal which

determines the future of the CAP. Questions on the content proposals were not discussed as the

meeting was held a couple of days before their adoption.

On 2nd May, the Commission presented its proposal for the MFF for the 2021-2027 period,

outlining the structure of the EU budget and the policy priorities of the EU for a period of seven

years. The main principles of the 2021-2027 MFF were explained, as well as the structure, figure

therein and elements directly related to the future CAP.

WWF asked if there were exceptions related to climate and environmental measures in co-

financing rates.

DG AGRI replied that co-financing will be compulsory for Member States for the Rural

Development Fund intervention.

CEPM asked if the figures took Brexit into account, what could be done to defend CAP funding

and if more information on the genuine farmer definition could be provided.

DG AGRI answered that the UK wasn’t included in the calculations and the 5% reduction in the

CAP budget takes Brexit into account. The CAP budget will be lower, but climate and

environmental ambitions will be higher. Therefore targeting and more efficient use of resources

should be improved by the structure of the future CAP. Giving more subsidiarity and flexibility

to Member States will help, as reducing the red tape and more fit for purpose. The proposal will

contain the definition of genuine farmer.

EuropaBio asked how the 25% dedicated to climate and environmental measures in the MFF

will be allocated in the future CAP and whether eco schemes will replace agri-environmental

measures in Pillar II. IFOAM asked how the environmental and climate actions would translate

on the ground. EISA asked to what extent the designers of eco schemes would have to deal with

Brussels rules in the future CAP.

DG AGRI explained that the 25% is an overall figure so all EU policies together should make up

25% climate-relevant expenditure. The CAP, given its relative financial size and dealing with

natural resources, should be expected to contribute with a higher share than other policies. Eco-

schemes will not replace agri-environmental schemes under Pillar II. Eco-schemes belong to

Pillar I and should be complementary.

Birdlife commented that they were concerned there was no ring-fencing for biodiversity and

nature under the MFF and CAP, and asked for clear ring-fencing amounting to €15 billion per

year in the CAP for this. They added that the EU has a legal obligation to finance the Natura

2000 network that was currently being underfinanced.

DG AGRI responded that ring-fencing for biodiversity would not be justified because the effects

of intervention go far beyond biodiversity and if done for biodiversity why not for soil, water and

environment. This would bring a lot of red tape and inefficient use of money. There will be

enhanced ring-fencing in Pillar II for the environment and climate.

COPA asked the Commission for more information on how Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) will be reached in light of the CAP budget reduction. They also asked if removals (e.g.

carbon sequestration) were to be included in results indicators. COGECA stated that it is

essential to encourage progress, both economic and environmental.

DG AGRI said more information would be in the proposals. There would certainly be enhanced

conditionality and the overall structure would work towards environmental and climate goals.

Since the New Delivery Model will be based on results, it is even more important that CAP

interventions are complementary, synergic, more targeted and consistent in CAP Strategic Plans.

Slow Food asked whether it was realistic to think the proposal will be approved by 2021, what

the specific objectives will be and how the Commission will ensure Member States don’t just

pick and choose among them.

DG AGRI said that the proposals will be sent to the European Parliament and the Council. The

co-legislators will then be responsible for taking their respective positions in relation to the

Commission's proposals. The intention is to facilitate a compromise in order to ensure the

entering into force by 2021.

COPA said adaptation should be discussed. The agricultural sector is vulnerable to adverse

weather events and it is the only sector that can mitigate and adapt at the same time, but the links

between adaptation and mitigation are still not visible. They asked if there were particular

elements related to climate change in the spirit of SDGs and the scope of the Paris Agreement in

the future CAP.

DG AGRI replied that adaptation has the same importance as biodiversity, water, air and soil and

it is up to the Member States to assess the relative importance and to design he appropriate

adaptation intervention. Risk management measures/instruments are also very important for

adaptation.

EEB asked a question related to policy coherence and stated that mitigating emissions can

involve trade-offs. They asked whether this was taken this into account in the CAP Strategic

Plans. Sustainable intensification is seen by many as a contradiction and has some benefits on

farm level but overall makes the situation worse.

DG AGRI replied that policy coherence is an important point in the proposal. There cannot be

measures in one region that will impact other ones negatively. The concept of sustainable

intensification is that production is increased but with the same level or less impact on natural

resources. If a Member State has a problem in a certain area, this should be identified, analysed

and addressed by an appropriate intervention.

The Chair stated that farmers often deal with trade-offs and the question is how far policies can

mitigate them.

Birdlife stated they want to see proper environmental safeguards on investment aid. They also

referred to a study by the Thuenen Institute2 analysing the effect of direct payments on incomes

2 https://www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/thuenen-workingpaper/ThuenenWorkingPaper_96.pdf

of farmers and structural change in agriculture in Germany, and to one by Professor Alan

Matthews of Trinity College, Dublin, stating that the capping of direct payments will have no

effect.

DG AGRI replied that there will be several mechanisms with higher ambitions on environmental

and climate action and that direct payments cannot be considered simply as income support as

they are conditional on environmental and climate requirements.

IFOAM asked the Commission to explain the difference between result indicator and output

indicator and how free Member States will be to define which indicators to use.

DG AGRI explained output indicators are linked to the relevant intervention, whereas result

indicators concern the intervention’s outcomes.

WWF asked how much time will be needed to process and evaluate a Member State’s CAP

Strategic Plan and whether only AGRI will be involved.

DG AGRI stated they will leave sufficient time for this process but will also rely on different

services as the approval is consensual. The quality of the Strategic Plan is crucial.

COPA stated that the Paris Agreement says to deal with climate change in a manner “that does

not threaten food production”. The optimisation of different systems and a balanced approach

should be the way forward. Without a degree of competitiveness ecosystem services cannot

continue to be provided by farmers. There must be compensation for additional efforts. It must be

understood that farmers are also working under climate conditions they can’t control.

Birdlife commented that productivity was the original goal of the CAP and it was effective but it

has come at a major cost to the environment. Biodiversity loss will only get worse and the myth

that agriculture is a homogenous sector that only benefits the environment must be dispelled.

There are farmers providing environmental benefits but these are not the ones benefitting from

subsidies. Money needs to go to farmers who manage their farms sustainably. It isn’t in a

farmer’s interest to exhaust the resources they use to produce food.

The Chair stated that he wished to remind stakeholders that the term “industrial farming” should

be avoided and affects farmers negatively every time it’s used.

ELO commented that every time the CAP is reformed, it becomes slightly worse. Farmers may

abandon the CAP and find solutions elsewhere. As a consequence, food quality will decrease,

there will be more land abandoned and more forest fires and less employment and more conflict

between farmers and urban citizens.

DG AGRI emphasised the need to express clearly and properly the definitions of the terms being

used in the discussions.

CEJA said that the situation in Member States is different across the EU and in some countries

large farms still get significant annual direct payments. They stated that capping could be more

successful in reaching its goals if it was related to farm size and that the option of degressive

payments should be looked at.

Presentation on the newly created Brussels-based organisation "Irrigants

d'Europe" by Adriano Battiliani

Adriano Battiliani presented the association that involves Italy, Spain, Italy and France. It

covers 7.7 million hectares and acts as a single voice of irrigated agriculture before the EU

institutions. Enlarged irrigated areas encourage investment in new technologies. Where there is

irrigation there are good conditions for encouraging biodiversity. There is a need for a multifactor

approach. Precise irrigation and big data are just some of the factors going forwards.

WWF commented that at the next CDG meeting could be an agenda point dedicated to

discussing the subject of water and agriculture.

COGECA said irrigation must be dealt with by all stakeholders. Agriculture offers a solution and

needs support to adapt to and preserve the environment.

Presentation of the study made by Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on the regional assessment of

biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia by DG ENV

DG ENV presented IPBES saying it is the biodiversity equivalent of the IPCC report for climate.

120 leading international experts were involved from 36 countries and more than 4,000

publications were assessed. The report is divided into five sections. Human activities such as land

use change and intensification, climate change, natural resource extraction, and invasive alien

species, cause biodiversity decline. The de-intensification of food production would reduce

impacts on biodiversity whereas the continuation of past and present trends would diminish the

achievement of SDGs. Mainstreaming, integration and participation are policy and governance

options going forward. There is also a need for societal transformation. Biodiversity and

ecosystem services are valuable for human wellbeing but they are in decline.

COGECA stated that they concluded from the presentation that farming and managing land

contributes to preserving eco systems. It should be possible to come up with a form of land

management to provide yield for farmers and contribute to environmental protection. They asked

to what extent DG ENV is touch with people responsible for land planning. They also added that

it would be more useful if the study focussed on regions.

IFOAM asked for more information about intensification, the proposed measures to deal with it

and about food waste and the loss of agricultural biodiversity.

WWF inquired about the positive monetary effect of having strong biodiversity and how to

calculate its monetary impact on farms.

DG ENV replied that agriculture was a driver of biodiversity loss, but also a solution, as pointed

out in the mid-term review of the biodiversity strategy to 2020. Land planning was a good point

to mention and in the nature action plan the Commission will provide guidance on how to

integrate ecosystem services for decision making, including for land planning. In terms of de-

intensification, a range of measures such as organic farming and agro-ecology can be

implemented. The study’s assessments were very broad because it was tasked with looking at

biodiversity at a global and broad world region level. In terms of monetary values of biodiversity

for agriculture, DG ENV was not aware of specific examples in the report, but referred to the

work of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity on Agriculture and Food (TEEB

AgFood) for such examples.

Presentation from French National Centre for Scientific Research on biodiversity

indicators and the loss of biodiversity by Romain Julliard

Romain Julliard explained that the French Breeding Bird Survey has been active since 1989 and

has shown a strong decline in farmland bird species. The 2017 figure shows the decline is

ongoing and even accelerating and that agri-environmental schemes have failed on the larger

scale despite considerable evidence that farming has a positive effect on wild biodiversity. There

is a need for direct and in situ measures to deal with biodiversity. One solution could be citizen

science. Offsetting biodiversity losses could be achieved through supporting farmers in

preserving wild biodiversity. Another solution would be payments for environmental services.

Developing a label such as “product issued from farming practices favouring biodiversity” could

also help.

COPA and COGECA called for better monitoring as well as better research and innovation in

this area. They also said the bird index doesn’t show the positive things farmers do to preserve

biodiversity.

Romain Julliard said he thought farmers already knew a lot about how they can improve

biodiversity on their farms and that this knowledge is not entirely shared with academics. He

added that waiting too long for the right knowledge can lead to a loss of biodiversity.

Birdlife commented that going towards result-oriented payments is not the solution. They

developed pilot projects on farms that measured the birdlife there and the environmental schemes

in place were having positive effects. It is still possible to be ambitious and maintain

environmental schemes related to practice.

EC report on the mid-term talks at the UNFCCC in Bonn (May 2018) by Herwig

Ranner (DG AGRI)

DG AGRI presented the positive outcome of COP23 and the intersessional SBSTA meeting in

Bonn. The components of the COP decision on agriculture include establishing a joint

SBSTA/SBI agenda on agriculture3 (Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA)) and a 2.5-

year work programme to be assessed at COP26. Parties agreed on a concrete agenda for the next

2.5 years (Koronivia Roadmap4). Submissions and comments for each of the roadmap topics are

open for accredited observers. Discussions on the land sector included the coordination of

support for implementation in the forest sector and voluntary Redd+ meetings.

COPA asked for the Commission’s opinion of the KJWA, the results and recommendations.

They also wanted to know how this would affect Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

and wished to highlight the links between adaptation and mitigation, as they worried the

adaptation part was not present enough. They also asked for clarification on the LULUCF

discussion at UN level.

DG AGRI explained that the link between the KJWA and NDCs is an indirect one because other

parties don’t yet want NDCs mentioned in relation to the KJWA. The KJWA is a process under

the UNFCCC Convention and not under the Paris Agreement. As agriculture is a topic of great

importance to all parties and discussions were very difficult for years, it is for now better to keep

it under the Convention. Adaptation under the Paris Agreement is treated uniformly for all

sectors. The general approach is to ensure that whatever measures are carried out, emissions will

be reduced and the sector will become more resilient. At the moment the Koronivia roadmap has

not been implemented, as there have been no workshops yet. The LULUCF discussion at

UNFCCC level was about issues not related to the EU internal LULUCF decision. Parties

discussed possible additional activities under the Clean Development Mechanism5 and about

holding voluntary meetings related to REDD+6 implementation.

Impact of large carnivores on livestock grazing: A report from farmer practice by

Martin Längauer, Vice Chair of the CDG (Copa-Cogeca)

The Vice Chair explained that large carnivores, particularly wolves, are a topic of discussion in

Austria. There are around 30,000 wolves in Europe, but 12,000-20,000 in the EU. In Austria in

3 https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/bonn_nov_2017/application/pdf/cp23_auv_agri.pdf

4 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/l01_2.pdf

5 https://cdm.unfccc.int/

6 http://www.un-redd.org/

2015 there were around 160 wolf attacks, though in some cases it’s not always possible to

determine what caused the attack. Mountain pastures count for 20% of Austria’s land and

animals there are particularly vulnerable to wolf attacks. High-meadow farming has been given

up due to these attacks in some parts of Austria already. Prevention measures such as fences can’t

be used everywhere in mountainous areas because of the terrain. Guard dogs are not available

and a lot of farmers don’t want to keep dogs. In addition the acceptance of prevention measures is

low because of the situation as part time farmers and the fact that no time reserves are left.

Pastoralism is Austria occurs on 8,400 pastures, two-thirds of the farmers work as part-time

farmers. Pasture management takes place on three different areas in the course of the year which

means that herd protection needs an enormous amount of work.

In case of damages the compensation for attacks by large carnivores is paid on a voluntary basis,

no institutional compensation system exists up to now. Tourism is also affected by wolves, as is

biodiversity. Agricultural structures need to change to deal with these problems. If farmers give

up farming because of the presence of large carnivores, certain landscapes will become

overgrown and unmanaged. COPA-COGECA stated in a recently approved position paper that

they believe the wolf is no longer an endangered species and measures to deal with them could

therefore be implemented.

Eurogroup for Animals said it is widely agreed that the wolf is still an endangered species, but

situations vary from country to country. Measures to improve coexistence should be

implemented. It is also up to Member States to make funding available for this. More efforts

should also be made to have shepherds and guard dogs in place.

COPA said that in Finland wolves are widespread. The Finnish government provides support for

damages caused by large carnivores, but these have been reduced this year. The government also

pays part of the fencing costs.

WWF explained that as far as conservation is concerned it’s a positive development that large

carnivores such as wolves have been able to settle again in Europe. The protection of biodiversity

under the current agricultural system isn’t really viable and methods to deal with problems and

find adequate compensation are necessary. A lot of families in affected regions are under

significant economic pressure and wolves are also an emotional subject. Sustainable farming

must be part of the CAP and the Vice Chair’s presentation seems to be implying that everything

is bad in relation to wolves.

The Vice Chair explained this was not what he was trying to say. The subject is highly emotive

and no progress will be made if only certain issues are focussed on. Both sides need to try to meet

each other halfway. The agricultural sector needs to accept that certain species have the right to

establish themselves, but conservationists need to recognise the damages these species can cause

and ways to control them need to be discussed and offered. One solution could be to look at

regions individually.

COGECA said there needs to be prevention but the cost is very high. Pastoralism is key to

preserving biodiversity and compromises must be found here so that there are no longer attacks,.

Wolves should no longer be considered an endangered species.

DG AGRI said that recruiting shepherds among the younger generation and training guard dogs

could be a solution.

ELO stated that more information was needed on this subject. Funds to deal with damages have

to be increased and provided more rapidly, but cannot be part of the CAP budget. They added

that hybrids of dogs and wolves could potentially cause more damage than the wolves

themselves.

The Vice Chair concluded by reacting to DG AGRI’s comment saying it is possible to encourage

shepherds and guard dogs, but there is a need decide where spending the money on this is

justified.

Presentation on the Regulation “2030 climate and energy framework: inclusion of

greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and

forestry” by Dan Burgar Kuzelicki (DG AGRI)

DG AGRI explained that the EU Climate and Energy Framework aims to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 40% through the following legislation: Emissions Trading Systems (ETS), Effort

Sharing Regulation (ESR), Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). LULUCF is

now included as part of the EU target and has to contribute in the reduction of emissions with the

target of “no debit rule”. This ensures that LULUCF contributions are at least neutral and

emissions from land use are entirely compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 from the

atmosphere. The LULUCF is also compatible with food security and biodiversity objectives.

LULUCF covers afforestation, deforestation, managed grasslands, managed croplands, managed

forests and managed wetlands from 2026. The reporting of emissions and removals is done

annually, but there will be two compliance periods 2021-2025 and 2026-2030. The regulation

was adopted by the Council on 14 May 2018. Member States can use a limited amount of

LULUCF credits under certain conditions for compliance under the Effort Sharing Regulation,

thus helping other sectors to decarbonise.

COPA asked how farmers can be recognised as CO2 removers based on their yields.

EEB addressed COPA’s point saying that the carbon produced by harvesting cereals, for

example, goes into the field. The cycle is continuous so they questioned why it should be

accounted for.

COGECA said that to improve management practices, all emissions and all removals must be

accounted for in order to produce more with less. What farmers are doing on their land must be

recognised. The Chair asked if straw that is being used with manure as a fertiliser was taken into

account in these calculations.

DG AGRI replied that LULUCF looks at human induced changes. The more forests there are

and with sustainable forest management they can sequester more. Once a crop is harvested, part

of carbon may be stored in soils, while if not stored in products (such as harvested wood products

in the case of forests or perennial crops) the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

CEPM asked if there were projections for 2030 for the balance between emissions and

sequestration and whether the transport of products was taken into account.

DG AGRI answered that Member States shall apply cost-effective solutions for meeting the

targets. There is no capping on methane, but it is covered under the Effort Sharing Regulation.

Transport of imports by sea is not included in LULUCF. If there are imports from third countries,

emissions should be accounted for there.

The Vice Chair asked what was meant by the time limitations related to the flexibility

mechanism in forestry and whether the fact that some Member States have stored more CO2 than

others in terms of grassland and cropland had been taken into account.

DG AGRI explained that on grasslands and croplands the transfer is not possible because

LULUCF is currently not part of the targets, though it counts towards the EU’s Kyoto

commitments.

ECVC asked if the increase in civilised land was included in LULUCF.

COPA commented that without forest roads forests could not be managed.

Biological solutions: meet the challenge of producing more with less in a sustainable

way for the benefit of agriculture while achieving the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) by Lee West, Global Agronomy Manager at Novozymes

Lee West explained Novozymes is exploring how microbes can be utilised across a variety of

sectors and how to find applications for microbial-based technologies. Contributing to

sustainability requires technical input and a coordinated effort across sectors. Biological solutions

contribute to SDGs. Microbes can be used to find sustainable solutions, such as biologically-

based plant protection products. Benefits include increased yields, water and nutrient efficiency,

stress tolerance and carbon sequestration. More than 200 million tonnes of CO2 could be avoided

if all known enzyme technology was implemented in industry.

Fertilizers Europe advised caution in the level of expectation, especially with trials in Europe.

Bio-stimulants are not the universal solution and even in the bio-stimulants world there are a

range of products.

EISA said they fully supported the presentation’s message but also Fertilizers Europe’s point in

terms of expecting too much from the CAP which is mostly focussed on primary production.

EuropaBio commented that the CAP is also about the environment and biotechnological

solutions fit in there. Raising awareness about all options is important.

ECVC asked if Novozymes products could have a negative effect on an individual farmer’s

situation.

Lee West replied that the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions and they want well-vetted, quantifiable

sustainability.

COPA commented that they always support research that looks at real needs. However,

benchmarking one product against another is a reason to worry. Farmers must be kept at the

centre of discussions and technology has to move forwards with farmers and has to be efficient,

safe to use, and affordable for farmers.

The Chair commented that there was a risk that the monopolising power of companies could

control certain technologies.

Lee West explained their goal is not to dominate a market in a way that eliminates product

development.

AOB

See Next Steps.

4. Conclusions/recommendations/opinions

Guidance

This part of the minutes should include comprehensive information on possible general

conclusions reached or recommendations/opinions delivered by the group, including the

outcome of a vote.

The future CAP’s budget will be reduced, but climate and environmental ambitions will

be higher. Further details will be revealed when the proposals are published.

The agricultural sector has been a driver of biodiversity loss, but can also offer solutions.

Farmers, conservationists and academics can work together to stem the biodiversity loss

in rural areas.

More must be done to help farmers deal with the effects of attacks by large carnivores.

Farmers must be recognised for the work they do in reducing CO2 emissions through

their activities.

5. Next steps

CEJA asked if water in glass bottles and glass cups could be used during CDG meetings to

reduce waste.

COPA commented that the registration form for CDG meetings has changed so it is no longer

possible to see what languages are on offer in the interpretation booths. This could limit

participants’ engagement in the discussions.

The Chair reminded those present that WWF had proposed that a topic for the next meeting

could concern the relationship between agriculture and water.

6. Next meeting

The next CDG on Environment and Climate Change will take place in November 2018.

7. List of participants - Annex

Disclaimer

"The opinions expressed in this report represent the point of view of the meeting

participants from agriculturally related NGOs at community level. These opinions

cannot, under any circumstances, be attributed to the European Commission. Neither the

European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible

for the use which might be made of the here above information."

List of participants– Minutes

Civil Dialogue Group on Environment and Climate Change

Date: 25 May 2018

MEMBER ORGANISATION NAME OF REPRESENTATIVES

AnimalhealthEurope (formerly known as IFAH-Europe) Gobbe Clara

Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs (C.E.P.M) Luís Bulhão Martins

Eurogroup for Animals DI SILVESTRE Ilaria

EuropaBio BUCO Maria Teresa

EuropaBio Amrani Nour

EuropaBio West Lee

European agri-cooperatives (COGECA) Righton Grace

European agri-cooperatives (COGECA) Pietola Liisa

European agri-cooperatives (COGECA) Di Rollo Barbara

European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) RUDBÄCK Göran

European Council of Young farmers (CEJA) MAES JANNES

European Council of Young farmers (CEJA) Fénix Tomáš Ignác

European Council of Young farmers (CEJA) LALLY Fiona

European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) Dinicica Marian Georgel

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Piskol Stephan

European farmers (COPA) KOUMENTAKOS Evangelos

European farmers (COPA) Hartelt Eberhard

European farmers (COPA) Le Corre Nelly

European farmers (COPA) Längauer Martin

Irrigants d'Europe BATTILANI Adriano

European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture

e.V. (EISA)

BUIJSSE Martijn

European Landowners' Organization asbl (ELO asbl) PADOURKOVA Adela

European Landowners' Organization asbl (ELO asbl) Oliveira e Sousa Eduardo

Fertilizers Europe Bömcke Elisabeth

FoodDrinkEurope (FoodDrinkEurope) LOPEZ Patricia

FoodDrinkEurope (FoodDrinkEurope) Alterto Babolin

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU

Regional Group (IFOAM EU Group)

Gall Eric

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU

Regional Group (IFOAM EU Group)

METERA Dorota

Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) Seda Orhan

Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) Sotgia Joonas

Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) Bilotta Michela

Slow Food (NA) AGRILLO Cristina

Stichting BirdLife Europe (BirdLife Europe) Carricondo Ana

WWF European Policy Programme (WWF EPO) MEISSNER Matthias

WWF European Policy Programme (WWF EPO) RUIZ Jabier

Mr. Julliard JULLIARD Romain

TOTAL 36